Constructive gadfly
Published on March 5, 2004 By stevendedalus In Entertainment

Mel Gibson’s controversial film is more of the same nose-rubbing at a time when we can do without sensationalizing religion. This 2000 year old event has had more than enough coverage from the various fields of art and books to satiate a thousand millennia. Riding on the success of “Braveheart” with its excruciating violence, Gibson is now profiteering on the execution of another martyr in a time when martyrdom has been loosely defined by Islamic jihad. Though I have not seen the film, nor intend to, there have been enough clips and critiques of it to know that had Jesus undergone such macabre punishment there would be no way the Romans could have nailed him to the cross alive, let alone have him suffer for another three hours. If it were any other subject, movie critics would denounce it as cheap and sadistic exploitation.


The more important issue here is that the nation is already at the breaking point of religious tensions — simple ceremonies of gay couples evidently in love are perceived as an affront to God and the Constitution, Catholicism is in the dumpster with its egregious perversions, the original liberalism of Protestantism is in shambles owing to the likes of Falwell and Robertson who have subverted the meaning of Christian tolerance, Judaism’s ironic wall — all in the face of extremely violent intolerance perpetrated by Islamic radicals. Enough already!


 


Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: March 5, 2004.


Comments
on Mar 05, 2004
This 2000 year old event has had more than enough coverage from the various fields of art and books to satiate a thousand millennia


I hate to say it, but money talks in this case. If the world didn't need another, I don't think it would have already made hundreds of millions of dollars. If people were really sick to death of hearing about it, why would they go? For every review I see like yours, I see another that is very appreciative. I think anything as obviously exploitive and tawdry would offend both Christians and non-Christians. For the most part the complaints I see are from people that already have a problem with modern religion as a whole, and frankly those aren't the people Gibson was making the movie for, anyway. I don't like a lot of 'chick' movies, but then again they weren't made for me, were they?

Though I have not seen the film, nor intend to


Honestly, 'nuff said. I don't see your 'critique' as anything pertaining to the quality of the film, only about why you think it shouldn't have been made. You could have made the same points and never mentioned the content. I think in the end all the hubbub will have to bow to the overwhelming popularity of the film. You may not like it, but obviously there are a lot of people who have seen it who differ. People have tried to exploit religion many times and failed, so I think the religious people are the ones that best judge whether they are being exploited.
on Mar 05, 2004
Riding on the success of “Braveheart”


Braveheart came out an awfully long time ago....
on Mar 05, 2004
Good points--enjoy! But I think you missed my point that the times are overcharged with religious tensions.
on Mar 05, 2004
But I think you missed my point that the times are overcharged with religious tensions.


Yeah, I see your point, but many don't feel that even amid the tensions their perspective was expressed at all. I honestly don't think Mel Gibson put up 25 million of his own money on a marketing scheme. Maybe I am naive, but I think he said something that he felt needed to be said. Whether it was really needed to be is of course up to the individual.

You have to admit it has been a long time since there was a 'Jesus' movie, and the last big one, "The Last Temptation of Christ", was not the voice of many Christians (though I liked it). I guess if you have seen all you care to see, you'll feel "enough already!!". If you feel that something has been left out in the flurry, you'll try and remedy that.

on Mar 06, 2004
Anglo, yes it was a long time ago; but with HBO and DVDs it's still much with us. Don't get me wrong, I thought Braveheart was great and instructive as a ferocious history lesson few of us knew about. I particularly admire Mel for risking his career on doing his version of "Hamlet" which I thought was really good.
BakerSt, Every Easter we are bombarded with the oldies, you know. Yet, I suppose, you're right that each generation should have its own version--and in these days, bloodier. 
on Mar 07, 2004
There has always been religious tention and I have to believe that this will never change. I don't see where the passion movie has done anything to antagonize it. They were crying Anti-Semitizem long before Mel Brooks was ever born and I'm sure it will continue long after he is dead and gone. Personally, I very much enjoyed the movie and I don't feel the way in which Christ was crucified was over kill. GCJ
on Mar 08, 2004
Well, you got me there, Gem, since I haven't seen it.
on Mar 10, 2004
I saw the movie and was moved by it. I am a Christian because Christ died for me. He showed the ultimate of love that he voluntarily went through that horrible death for me. He was the ultimate victim for all of the other victims of the world. In the middle of the violent and bloody scenes of the crucifixion were scenes which demonstrated his love for those around him. The love that impels you and me to care for those who live in poverty and oppression comes from the man who suffered that way.
on Mar 11, 2004
Good comment, Sherye: Jesus surely was the champion of the meek and impoverished.